Effects of various submucous resection techniques of septal cartilage on nasal tip
projection.

код для вставки на сайт или в блог

ссылки на документ

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Eﬀects of various submucous resection techniques of septal cartilage
on nasal tip projection
Richard A. Zoumalan, MD1 , Luc G.T. Morris, MD2 , Daniel M. Zeitler, MD3 , Anil R. Shah, MD4
Background: There is lile research which determines
whether septoplasty aﬀects nasal projection.
Objectives: To assess the eﬀect of various septoplasty (submucous resection, SMR) techniques on nasal tip projection
in a fresh cadaver model.
Methods: The nasal tip projection was measured on 6 fresh
cadaver heads and compared postoperatively aer a sequence of submucous septoplasty maneuvers. Five diﬀerent septoplasty techniques were performed in the same
sequence on each cadaver. Aer each technique, measurements were performed.
Results: Removal of a central square piece of quadrangular cartilage resulted in a loss of projection in 3 in 6 (50%)
heads, with average loss of 7.76%. Removal of additional cartilage along the bony cartilaginous junction resulted in no
loss of projection. Removing more septum along the ﬂoor
resulted caused a change loss in nasal projection in 1 in 6
(17%) cadavers. Removing the remaining septum, except for
the L-strut resulted in a loss of projection in 2 in 6 (33%)
A
pproximately 80% of the general population has septal deviation, with up to one-third suffering from some
1
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Division of
Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. University of Washington,
Seattle, WA; 2 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery,
Division of Neuro-Otology. University of Miami. Miami, FL;
3
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Memorial
Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. New York, NY; 4 Division of Facial
Plastic Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck
Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Correspondence to: Richard Zoumalan, Department of Otolaryngology,
Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive
Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; e-mail:
rzoumalan@gmail.com
This study was performed while all the above authors were at New York
University in the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
Presented at the annual American Rhinologic Society Meeting as an oral
presentation in Las Vegas, NV in April, 2010.
Potential conflict of interest: None provided.
Received: 10 May 2010; Revised: 18 July 2010; Accepted: 19 August 2010
DOI: 10.1002/alr.20009
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com.
heads with an average percent change in tip projection of
9.08%. Swinging door technique resulted in a loss of projection in 1 cadaver (17%), with loss of 6.25%. All 6 cadavers
experienced loss of nasal projection. When all maneuvers
were taken in total, there was a statically signiﬁcant average decrease in projection of 8.93% (range, 5.00–13.04%,
p = 0.008).
Conclusion: Primary septoplasty carries a risk of nasal tip
projection, with certain maneuvers carrying higher risk.
C 2011 ARS-AAOA, LLC.
Key Words:
septal cartilage; nasal tip projection; submucous resection
techniques; techniques; rhinoplasty; septum
How to Cite this Article:
Zoumalan RA, Morris LGT, Zeitler DM, Shah AR. Eﬀects of
various submucous resection techniques of septal cartilage on nasal tip projection. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol, 2011;
1:78–82
degree of anatomic nasal obstruction. Many patients seeking nasal septal surgery desire operative intervention not because of a desire to alter the aesthetic character of their nose,
but simply to correct anatomic narrowing of the nasal airway which may be contributing to the inability to breathe
from the nose.
Septoplasty is a broad term that refers to a variety of
operations used to straighten or remove deviated portions
of cartilage for the nasal airway to become more widely
patent. Perhaps the most common variant of the septoplasty
is a submucous resection (SMR), whereby a central portion
of cartilage is removed, preserving at least 2 cm of caudal
and dorsal septal cartilage (ie, L-strut). A central tenant
in many otolaryngology textbooks is that maintenance of
a strong L-strut will prevent any postoperative changes in
the appearance of the nose or affect nasal tip projection.
The possibility of septoplasty having an aesthetic outcome on a patient’s nose is often downplayed, with many
surgeons who perform septoplasty not taking preoperative
and postoperative photography. During consent for septal surgery, only 20% to 23% of ear, nose, and throat
International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, Vol. 1, No. 1, January/February 2011
78
Effect of Septoplasty on Nasal Tip Projection
(ENT) surgeons discuss the potential complication of aesthetic change.1,2 Previous prospective analysis reports that
the rate of cosmetic effect from septal surgery is in the range
of 0% to 21%.3,4 A survey by Peacock5 of 409 patients revealed that 21.8% of patients who underwent septoplasty
had noticed some change in shape of the news. Phillips3
also found a 21% rate of cosmetic change of the nose in
41 patients who were surveyed after surgery. Three said
the change was noticed immediately, and 6 noticed it some
months later. However, only 1 patient had obvious change
when preoperative and postoperative pictures were compared. There was no mention of objective measurements in
the patients.3 In a questionnaire study by Thomas,6 which
evaluated 78 patients over a 2-year period, 17% reported a
change in the external appearance of their nose which was
attributed to SMR.
Although there is abundant literature on nasal tip projection and the factors that affect it, the role of the cartilaginous nasal septum in providing nasal tip projection is not
well delineated. In fact, the standard lists outlining both the
major and minor tip supporting mechanisms do not list the
nasal septum or septal strength as a factor. Several authors
who have looked at nasal tip projection have found that
septoplasty was the most disruptive factor in terms of loss
of tip projection.7 However, in this study, it is not clear
from the authors what approach to the septum took place.
One study did attempt an objective measurement of the
aesthetic sequelae of septoplasty. Daudia et al.8 found a
39.5% rate of minor change (≤2 mm) and a 4.5% rate of
major change (≥3 mm) in tip projection in patients who
underwent various types of nasal septal surgery. In this
study, various techniques were used by different surgeons,
and revision nasal surgeries were included. While this study
points to the fact that the septum may play a role in nasal
tip projection, it does not determine which maneuvers in
septoplasty lead to a loss of nasal tip projection.
The primary aim of this study was to objectively measure
changes in nasal tip projection as a result of 5 different septoplasty techniques to determine the impact each maneuver
has on nasal tip projection. This is the first study which analyzes a variety of maneuvers used in septoplasty on nasal
projection in a standardized fashion.
Materials and methods
A total of 6 fresh cadaver heads were used for this study. All
septoplasty operations were performed by the same senior
surgeon for consistency (A.R.S.) while all measurements
performed by the same surgeons for consistency (D.M.Z.,
L.G.T.M., R.A.Z.).
Nasal tip projection was calculated as the distance from
the bony premaxilla to the nasal tip. In order to yield
standardized measurements, we determined that the nasal
tip corresponded to the domal highlights. First, a straight
ruler was placed in a plane perpendicular to the face from
the fixed bony points of the subnasale at the premaxilla
and at the glabella. A line was created perpendicular to
79
FIGURE 1. This is how measurements of projection were taken. Two rulers
were placed on the patient perpendicular to the face, 1 on the glabella and
1 on the subnasale. Then another ruler was placed perpendicular to these
lines. The distance from premaxilla at subnasale to the line was measured.
This value is seen as “X” in the image.
these 2 points and the nasal tip distance was calculated as
the distance from the subnasale to the perpendicular line.
Figure 1 depicts how projection was recorded. X in the
image is the distance from premaxilla to the line drawn
perpendicular to both lines. Since there is variation in the
soft tissues of each cadaver, the ruler was positioned directly on the premaxilla firmly and tested on each cadaver
for accuracy prior to completing the study.
Once the preoperative nasal tip projection was calculated
and recorded, we performed all 5 of the septoplasty techniques on all 6 cadaver heads in the following manner.
The sequence was chosen because each progressive maneuver was more invasive and to determine the impact on the
nose. To begin, a modified hemi-transfixion incision was
made with a 15-blade in the left nasal cavity.
A total of 5 different techniques were performed. Technique 1 consisted of the removal of a small central 2-cm ×
2-cm square of cartilage was removed from the septum (abbreviated “square” in Table 1). This technique preserved
at least 2 cm of caudal and dorsal septum. In Figure 2, the
red square is the portion of the septal cartilage that was
removed.
Technique 2 consisted of removal of septal cartilage
and bone at the bony cartilaginous junction. Essentially,
the quadrangular cartilage was separated at the bonycartilaginous junction with preservation of at least a 2-cm
dorsal cartilaginous strut. Figure 3 shows the blue
area which was removed posterior to the square in
Technique 1.
Technique 3 consisted of removing a caudal portion of
cartilage which preserved a 2-cm segment of caudal support as well as a longer portion along the septal floor. In
Figure 4, this area is shown in green.
Technique 4 consisted of removing the portion of septal
cartilage along the floor, leaving just a 2-cm caudal and
dorsal strut. Figure 5 shows this area in lavender.
International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, Vol. 1, No. 1, January/February 2011
Zoumalan et al.
TABLE 1. Results of each of the maneuvers∗
Maneuver
Square
B-C junction
Caudal
Floor
Swinging door
Total
Cadaver 1,%
13.03 (3 mm)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.04 (3 mm)
Cadaver 2,%
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.16 (2.5 mm)
0.00
13.16 (2.5 mm)
Cadaver 3,%
5.26 (1 mm)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.26 (1 mm)
Cadaver 4,%
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00 (1 mm)
0.00
5.00 (1 mm)
Cadaver 5,%
5.00 (1 mm)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00 (1 mm)
Cadaver 6,%
0.00
0.00
5.88 (1 mm)
0.00
6.25 (1 mm)
12.13 (2 mm)
p = 0.363
p = 0.118
p = 0.363
p = 0.008
5.88%
9.08%
6.25%
8.93%
t test
Average
p = 0.289
7.76%
0.00
∗
Values are percentage change of nasal tip projection. The number of the maneuver refers to the technique number mentioned in the manuscript body. Square refers to
removal of central square of cartilage. B-C junction refers to removal of septal cartilage at bony-cartilaginous junction. Caudal refers to removing more near the caudal
portion of septum. Floor refers to removal of septal cartilage from floor. While each individual maneuver did itself not produce a significantly significant change in nasal
tip projection, the total result percent change in nasal tip projection was statistically significant.
Technique 5 consisted of creation of a swinging door,
in which the caudal septum is disarticulated form the
maxilla and swung to the opposite side. The hemitransfixion incision was not closed. No quilting sutures
nor any other maneuver to permanently medialize were
performed.
Six fresh cadaver heads were used in this study (Table 1).
When looking at Technique 1, removal of a 1-cm2 cen-
tral piece of quadrangular cartilage, it resulted in a loss of
projection in 3 in 6 (50%) of the cadaver heads with an
average tip projection loss of 7.76% (p = 0.289). The loss
of projection was 1 mm in 2 of the heads, and 3 mm in 1
of the heads.
Technique 2, removal of cartilage and bone at the bonycartilaginous junction did not result in a loss of projection
in any of the cadaver heads.
Technique 3, in which more caudal cartilage was removed, resulted in a change in nasal projection in 1 in 6
(17%) of the heads. The 1 cadaver specimen with a change
FIGURE 2. This is Technique 1. A central square piece of cartilage was
FIGURE 3. This is Technique 2. Cartilage and bone at the bony-
removed.
cartilaginous junction was removed.
Results
International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, Vol. 1, No. 1, January/February 2011
80
Effect of Septoplasty on Nasal Tip Projection
in 6 (33%) of the heads demonstrated loss of tip projection
with an average percent change in tip projection of 9.08%
(p = 0.118). One cadaver head lost 1 mm of projection,
while another lost 2.5 mm.
Technique 5, swinging door, resulted in a loss of projection in 1 cadaver (17%), with loss of 1 mm, which was a
6.25% change in projection (p = 0.363).
After all aforementioned maneuvers were performed on
each cadaver, all 6 cadavers experienced loss of nasal projection. When all maneuvers were taken in total, there was
an average decrease in projection of 8.93%, which reached
statistical significance (p = 0.008). The total loss of projection after all maneuvers ranged from 5% to 13%. It
is important to note that all the cadavers lost projection
on some level. The maneuvers on which the cadavers lost
projection varied from head to head.
Discussion
FIGURE 4. This is Technique 3. More cartilage at the caudal portion of the
septum was removed, with care to leave adequate 2 cm of L-strut.
in nasal tip projection demonstrated a 1 mm, or 5.88%,
change (p = 0.363).
Conversely, in Technique 4, when a down-cut was made
and the remainder of septum along the floor was removed, 2
FIGURE 5. This is Technique 4. Cartilage and bone at the floor of the nose
was removed.
81
SMR of the septal cartilage is 1 of the most common procedures performed by otolaryngologists for relief of nasal
obstruction. Additionally, septoplasties are frequently performed in conjunction with a standard rhinoplasty. Thus,
both the correct techniques for performing septoplasties
as well as the aesthetic consequences of the operation become relevant. While SMR has historically been considered a procedure which will have little to no impact on
nasal tip projection, recent research has shown that the
nasal septum does in fact play a supporting role for nasal
tip projection.7–9 However, none of the previous research
has explicitly detailed the techniques used for performing
septoplasty.
It is important to note that this pattern of multiple maneuvers in 1 septoplasty is not standard. It is also uncommon that these maneuvers are performed in the specific
order used in the study. Many surgeons do not even remove cartilage or bone. It is not surprising that projection
is affected by removing enough cartilage to leave only an
L-strut, which is further destabilized by the swinging door
technique. Furthermore, maneuvers 2 through 5 are confounded by the previous maneuvers. They cannot be isolated because they are affected by the mechanical effects
of the previous maneuvers. Also, cadaveric cartilage has
properties that live human tissues do not. Thus, while the
results of a cadaveric study cannot be truly translated to
live patients, they can suggest the possibility that the same
can occur in a live patient.
Although the current study used only a limited number
of cadaveric specimens, it can be inferred that SMR of the
nasal septal cartilage can result in loss of nasal tip projection. This is known, and it is consistent with previous
studies. The study also shows that different maneuvers create different effects. The purpose of the study is not to give
a firm conclusion based on 6 cadaver heads. This is a matter that should be investigated further. The study acts as
somewhat as a pilot study, which can be extended into a
International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, Vol. 1, No. 1, January/February 2011
Zoumalan et al.
more formal study looking at the individual maneuvers on
a larger scale.
While in some cadavers the loss is as little as 1 mm, it
was as high as 3-mm change due to the addition of another maneuver. A 1-mm loss may not be noticeable, but
a 3-mm change in projection in a short nose may be significant. Among the other procedures tested, no nasal tip
projection was lost by simply dislocating the cartilaginous
nasal septum from the posterior bony septum. The backcut posteriorly along the bony-cartilaginous junction did
not impact nasal tip projection in this study, while the anterior down-cut resulted in nasal tip projection loss in only
2 specimens, but the percent change in tip projection was
less than the cartilage removal technique. These results may
have been due to certain septal deformities or anatomic factors that existed in specific cadaver heads which resulted in
varying degrees of reduction.
All cadaver heads underwent some loss of projection.
More cadaver heads lost projection by the first maneuver
than the other maneuvers. This may have been due to simply making a hemitransfixion incision and elevating soft
tissue support. However, the destabilizing properties of various incisions has not been adequately assessed. Although
none of the individual maneuvers assessed demonstrated
statistically significant change, any loss of projection may
be only accentuated over time. The loss of tip projection
in these cadavers potentially underestimates the potential
loss of projection which may occur in live patients. In live
patients, the loss of tip projection would be accentuated
by skin contracture. Over the course of months, the forces
of skin contracture may depress the dorsum and shorten
the columella. The remaining strut can be pulled in a ventral and cephalic direction. These changes become visibly
apparent by 9 months.
In addition to projection, it has been suggested that septoplasty can also lead to minor changes in the supra-tip
and columella contours.8 Many patients who undergo septoplasty specifically ask their surgeon whether a septoplasty
will change the aesthetic appearance of their nose. Prior to
surgery, septoplasty patients should be counseled regarding
possible complication of cosmetic changes.
Especially in academic institutions, a SMR septoplasty is
often considered a junior resident surgeon’s case. Given the
visual limitations monitor each maneuver, teaching septoplasty is difficult and often inadequate. The potential cosmetic outcome of septal surgery should call attention to
the training of septoplasty. Young surgeons should be able
to discern which maneuvers have a higher likelihood of
producing cosmetic change.
In addition, otolaryngologists should be able to address
loss of nasal tip projection (ie, tongue in groove/columellar
strut) endonasally should the need arise. One of the challenges of septoplasty and rhinoplasty is that each nose has
unique anatomy. This study did not attempt to identify
other anatomic factors which may affect septoplasty. Preoperative evaluation may help predict which maneuvers
pose risk to projection. Palpation of nasal tip before and
after septoplasty to see if nasal tip recoil has changed as
well as palpation prior to surgery in order to determine the
technique that should be used.
Conclusion
Nasal septal surgery may change nasal tip projection. Surgeons should be aware of this and be able to compensate
for loss of tip projection. During informed consent, patients
should be made aware of this risk.
References
1.
2.
3.
Maran AGD. Informed consent in head and neck
surgery. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1990;15:293–
298.
Daws PJD. Informed consent: questionnaire survey of
British Otolaryngologists. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci.
1994;19:388–393.
Phillipps JJ. The cosmetic effects of submucous resection. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1991;16:179–
181.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Vuyk HD, Langenhuijsen KJ. Aesthetic sequelae of septoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci.
1997;22:226–232.
Peacock MR. Submucous resection of the nasal septum. J laryngol Otol. 1981;95:341–356.
Thomas JN. SMR: two year follow up survey. J Laryngol Otol. 1978;92:661–666.
Adams WP Jr, Rohrich RJ, Hollier LH, Minoli J,
Thornton LK, Gyimesi I. Anatomic basis and clinical
8.
9.
implications for nasal tip support in open versus closed
rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103:255–261;
discussion 262–264.
Daudia A, Alkhaddour U, Sithole J, Mortimore S.
A prospective objective study of the cosmetic sequelae of nasal septal surgery. Acta Otolaryngol.
2006;126:1201–1205.
Johnson CM, Toriumi D. A Case Approach to Open
Structure Rhinoplasty. 1st ed. Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders; 1990.
International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, Vol. 1, No. 1, January/February 2011
82